Abstract:Drug interactions are not a new phenomenon, yet some may be overlooked simply because they are not well recognised. Recent studies have highlighted an interaction between diltiazem – a commonly prescribed non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker used for rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) – and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) which inhibit Factor Xa to, amongst other indications, reduce stroke risk in AF. As mentioned, this is not a new concept – indeed, a pharmacokinetic study 10 years ago demonstrated a 1.4-fold increase in apixaban exposure when co-prescribed diltiazem(1). Despite this, many clinicians may be unaware of the potential for such drug-drug interactions, as anticoagulation and rate control may be viewed as unrelated aspects of AF management. Since 2014, several studies have attempted to quantify the bleeding risk associated with combining these medications. Unfortunately, such comparisons are fraught with confounding variables, and not all studies have demonstrated a significant effect. In this issue of Heart Rhythm , two new studies are presented which assess this important topic(2,3). Ang et al. present the results of a meta-analysis of almost half a million patients taking DOACs with or without diltiazem(2). A trend was seen towards increased bleeding risk, but this did not reach statistical significance (HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.94-1.42]; p=0.16). Meanwhile, Wong et al. present a large, propensity matched, retrospective study assessing bleeding alongside other outcomes in those taking DOACs and diltiazem, and other drugs such as amiodarone which may have similar effects(3). Again, no significant bleeding risk was observed with diltiazem and DOACs in combination. This latter study, whilst employing rigorous statistical techniques, likely falls prey to unmeasured confounders, based on observations which do not make clinical sense. For example, an almost 4-fold increase in mortality was seen when a DOAC was initiating whilst taking diltiazem (OR 3.79); however, initiating in the reverse order (diltiazem whilst already taking a DOAC) was associated with markedly reduced mortality (OR 0.38). The only plausible explanation for this is unmeasured confounding. By way of explanation, let us consider a patient already established on diltiazem who then initiates a DOAC. Diltiazem may have been prescribed for pre-existing AF rate control, but the lack of DOAC suggests a low thromboembolic risk, or perhaps a contraindication. For them to suddenly be initiated on a DOAC suggests their stroke risk increased – this might simply represent an increase in age, but in some cases may be due to a new diagnosis of a significant cardiovascular morbidity (e.g., diabetes), or even due to thromboembolic stroke. The latter situations clearly depict a patient at higher risk of mortality, especially if anticoagulation was previously considered contraindicated. Conversely, a patient already established on a DOAC then initiated on diltiazem likely had no change in their baseline clinical condition, other than perhaps suboptimal rate control or failure of rhythm control. This situation portends a different prognosis. These are speculative examples; however, this illustrates the degree of complexity when attempting to establish a causal relationship, especially when the factor in question – drug initiation order – should not itself have any effect. Indeed, bleeding events also are a red flag for patients at 'high risk' of major clinical events(4).

Dicloxacillin is an inducer of intestinal P‐glycoprotein but neither dicloxacillin nor flucloxacillin increases the risk of stroke/systemic embolism in direct oral anticoagulant users

Potential Therapeutic Hazards Due to Drug–drug Interaction Between Topically and Systemically Coadministered Medications

Dicloxacillin: a higher risk than cloxacillin for infusion phlebitis

Do Non-Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers Increase Bleeding Risk with Direct Oral Anticoagulants?

Drug-drug interactions with direct oral anticoagulants for the prevention of ischemic stroke and embolism in atrial fibrillation: a narrative review of adverse events

Diclofenac use and cardiovascular risks: series of nationwide cohort studies

Drug-Drug Interactions of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs): From Pharmacological to Clinical Practice

Comparative safety and effectiveness of reduced doses of direct acting oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

Drug-Drug Interaction Studies of Cardiovascular Drugs Involving P-Glycoprotein, an Efflux Transporter, on the Pharmacokinetics of Edoxaban, an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor

Potential interactions between medications for rate control and direct oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort and case-crossover study

Drug Interactions Affecting Oral Anticoagulant Use

The real world use of combined P-glycoprotein and moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors with rivaroxaban or apixaban increases bleeding

Impact of P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4-interacting drugs on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation using non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: a nationwide cohort study

Risk of Major Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Dronedarone in Combination With a Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant (From a U.S. Claims Database)

Relevance of P-glycoprotein in stroke prevention with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Direct Oral Anticoagulants May Increase Their Benefit-Risk Ratio

Detection and management of clinically relevant drug-drusg interactions with direct oral anticoagulants: An intervention study in community pharmacies

Management of direct oral anticoagulant drug interactions in hospitalized patients

A comprehensive insight from molecular docking and dynamics with clinical investigation on the impact of direct oral anticoagulants on atheroprotective protein in atrial fibrillation

Investigation of the effects of a new transdermal formulation of systemic diclofenac on the upper gastrointestinal mucosa in patients with low back pain: A comparative study with oral diclofenac

Direct Oral Anticoagulation vs Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage